Blue Mass Group - Front Pagehttp://bluemassgroup.com
Reality-based commentary on politics.Sun, 30 Apr 2017 02:33:59 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1Site Maintenance Very Soonhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/7TtqGvGe-h0/
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:40:54 +0000hesterprynneDear BMG Folk: The site is about to undergo some maintenance and upgrades. We’ll be down for a bit. Please stay tuned to the BMG Twitter account (@bluemassgroup) for updates. Thanks for your support and see you on the other side!
]]>9http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/site-maintenance-very-soon/The cost of giving birth to a babyhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/iVidVffK-BM/
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:06:30 +0000andreiradulescubanu
Obamacare did not dispense with the greed of the medical-industrial complex.
- promoted by charley-on-the-mta

A colleague with a corporate health plan told me that his family hospital bills – with a corporate health plan – for the birth of his baby was more than $3,000. The health plan only covered the birth of the baby after a hefty $3,000 deductible.

Moreover, the hospital sent an additional $2,000 charge claiming that they had to treat the newborn of some infection, and the treatment was not covered by the $3,000 deductible.

When my colleague pressed to find out more detail, the hospital explained this was not treating a real infection, but the possibility of an infection. It was a prophylactic treatment.

How did we get to this point? How can the birth of a baby, with a corporate health plan, cost $3000 out of pocket – and how can the hospital send an additional bill for $2,000 for treatment it thinks is needed (but apparently the insurance does not cover in the standard package)?

Don’t we have state rules in the state of Massachusetts mandating that (a) hospitals only charge what the insurance covers, (b) insurance is obligated to cover 99.999% of what is needed during child birth?

And, not to forget, when did we get to the point that corporate plans are even permitted to have such high deductibles? We have discussed this many times in the past when the subject of non-competes comes up. Employees have minimal bargaining position, when looking for a job, to stay and ask detailed questions about the corporate health plan. And weeks after they join, the corporate health plan can change from under them.

There is some history behind this. Corporate health plans offered much better benefits about ten years ago. Then, Obamacare happened. The way things were explained at many companies, corporate health plans had to change due to higher costs caused by Obamacare.

In effect, Obamacare did not create higher costs for the employees of these companies… Nor did Obamacare force these companies to change health plans. But health plan costs, and, possibly, taxes, did go up. And companies found it convenient to pass the health costs to the employees.

Municipal employees, probably, fare no better. If municipalities are in the GIC plan, they have similarly high deductibles.

There are some additional quirks to consider. Once the babies are born, I am told, they becomes a dependent of the plan, and immediately starts accruing costs with their own deductible, separate from the mother.

…So I have asked my friend how he paid for his baby. He said he charged it to his credit card.

]]>22http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/the-cost-of-giving-birth-to-a-baby/Seth Moulton Fundraises with Big Business to Move the Democratic Party to the Righthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/amwUv20Fw0o/
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:21:39 +0000jcohn88
Is the New Democrat Coalition serving up anything other than another round of Republican Lite?
- promoted by hesterprynne

Since last November’s election, there has been a lot of discussion about the path forward for the Democratic Party. Given the loss of the presidency and countless governorships legislative offices countrywide, how does the party need to change — and does it need to change — to gain back power?

On Monday, Seth Moulton (MA-06) had friends from the New Democrat Coalition — Jim Himes (CT-04), Kathleen Rice (NY-04), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Ron Kind (WI-03), Ami Bera (CA-07), Annie Kuster (NH-02), and Stacey Plaskett (VI-AL) — in town here in Boston for a pair of fundraisers for the New Democrat Coalition’s affiliated PAC to talk about the future of the party.

So what is the future of the party being advocated here? The fact that Helen Milby & Company, which coordinated the events, is in the business of arranging meetings between Members of Congress and corporate lobbyists and executives can give a clue. But first to some background.

Similar questions about the future and direction of the party loomed large twenty years ago after a disastrous loss to Ronald Reagan. And when there are questions, corporate interests are always ready to provide answers. The Democratic Leadership Council formed in this period as a way to purge the Democratic Party of the influence of 1960s and 1970s progressive social movement influence. People like DLC founder Al From believed that the Democratic Party had lost in 1980 and 1984 because it had moved too far to the left (a conclusion systematically debunked by Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers in their must-read Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics). From and DLC allies routinely critiqued the Democratic Party as being overly subservient to liberal interest groups — while they were pushing it to be more subservient to corporate interests, especially finance. The solution to the Democrats’ woes was, effectively, to become Republican lite.

Although the DLC itself closed up shop in 2011, its legacy lives on in the form of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank that is decidedly not progressive in its policy prescriptions, and the New Democrat Coalition, which formed in 1997 as a Congressional Caucus analog to the DLC.

If you read the New Democrat Coalition’s “American Prosperity Agenda,” released last year, it’s clear that the target audience is exactly the corporate lobbyists and executives in attendance on Monday, not working- or middle-class voters. The language is filled with corporate buzzwords, and the concrete policy proposals are all about reducing business regulations or creating/expanding tax credits or tax incentives. Their vision of “prosperity,” of course, also includes support for corporate-written trade deals that put environmental and public health regulations at risk and redistribute wealth upward. And the New Democrats’ focus on debts an deficits shows a clear preference for the investor class over those who suffer from the impacts of austerity.

What’s perhaps most striking about the “American Prosperity Agenda” is what’s missing. Talk of unions or labor protections more broadly. Minimum wage increases. Robust climate action. Any concept of universal and equitable public goods (single payer? more equitable education funding?). A shift away from an austerity framework beyond just targeted investments in business-preferred sectors. Attention to the systemic injustices that create and exacerbate racial income/wealth gaps — and the need for comprehensive criminal justice reform. In other words, the “American Prosperity Agenda” may increase the total wealth of the United States, but it is by no means a shared prosperity agenda. It sits in striking contrast to the bills and budgets advocated by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Seth Moulton is beloved by many Democrats in Massachusetts because of his tendency to pick high-profile fights with Donald Trump on issues like the refugee ban. And he is to be commended for that (his media team, too). But the vision he and his New Democrat peers are advocating is no solution to the Democratic Party’s woes. The Democratic Party didn’t lose the election last year because it didn’t raise enough corporate money or cater to the business class enough. The Democratic Party lost because of a failure to inspire enough voters to come out to vote. And a new round of corporate tax incentives won’t fix that.

]]>57http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/seth-moulton-fundraises-with-big-business-to-move-the-democratic-party-to-the-right/Sean Garballey is my candidate of choice in the 4th Middlesex Special Electionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/0jKRhkAcPyc/
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:20:32 +0000amberpaw
Another BMG'er and voter in the Fourth Middlesex Senate district weighs in.
- promoted by hesterprynne

In the coming State Senate special election in the 4th Middlesex, I am with Sean Garballey. I have seen his commitment to foster children, indigent defense, the homeless, the special needs student, the deaf and hard of hearing, and so many other similar groups and individuals. I am warmed by his loyalty, and his great heart. He is true to his roots, to Arlington, and to the district. He did not need to move back into the district because he never left us behind. He was there at my husband’s wake. He was there at Marc’s funeral. And he has mourned with my family and remained a steady support over these difficult years. So many others were gone once Marc died and never checked to see how I, Sam, and Sarah were doing. Sean remained in touch, and a supportive friend in our lives. I could have no better, truer, more honest, and more modest while effective state senator than Sean Garballey. Despite my general loss of faith and confidence in party politics and concerns about the undue class consciousness that I often see among those who call themselves progressives, Sean’s hard work and kind approach to politics are #1 with me. Sean is a good and honest man and I would be glad, even grateful, to have him as my state senator. I have nothing to gain in saying these things except good governance from a true public servant. As to other candidates, it is always good to have multiple qualified candidates whomever they may be. No one owns a seat or the right to represent a district; votes must be earned and Sean has earned mine.

Former President Barack Obama’s decision to accept a $400,000 fee to speak at a health care conference organized by the bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald is easily understood. That’s so much cash, for so little work, that it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to turn it down. And the precedent established by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to say nothing of former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan and a slew of other high-ranking former officials, is that there is nothing wrong with taking the money.

Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama’s position. It would set a precedent.

Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He’d be looking down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making enemies.

Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig.

(Hat tip to Lawyers, Guns, and Money, via Eschaton.)

On the bright side, maybe this will motivate more people to run for office.

]]>113http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/an-opportunity-lost-obama-takes-large-speaking-fee/A Couple of Updates on the Russia Storyhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/AzuhSs_c7IE/
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:26:18 +0000jimc
The worst, most corrupt stuff is just out in the open.
- promoted by charley-on-the-mta

I’m not trying to steal Mark’s thunder, but I googled Carter Page just to get an update.

Page is the founder and managing partner of an investment fund called Global Energy Capital, and that he claims to have years of experience investing in Russia and the energy sector. As for his connection to Trump, when Page was reached for comment by the New York Times the day after Trump’s big reveal, he said he had been sending policy memos to the campaign and the paper said he “will be advising Mr. Trump on energy policy and Russia.”

It gets better:

What I did find, however, is that while Page might not be helping Trump, Trump has been a significant help to Page. Since being named by Trump as an adviser, Page, who has spent his career trying to put together energy deals in Russia and the former Soviet Union, has finally begun to be noticed in the region. He is being treated in Russia as a person with potentially important ties in America. “He’s an extremely well-informed, authoritative expert on Russia,” says Mikhail Leontiev, a pro-Kremlin talking head and spokesman for Rosneft, Russia’s state oil giant. “People really respect him in this industry. He’s a very serious guy, and he has a good reputation.” According to the Yahoo report, U.S. intelligence believes Page had an audience with top Russian officials—including Rosneft head Igor Sechin—during a summer trip to Moscow. From what I could find about him, it’s hard to imagine he could have secured those meetings without that mention by Trump.

Any other updates?

]]>11http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/a-couple-of-updates-on-the-russia-story/Gambling vs. Marijuana: A Tale of Two "Vices"http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/jGyinAQwLzA/
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:22:16 +0000hesterprynneIt’s been nearly six months since the voters approved Question 4 to legalize and tax recreational marijuana. But we’re still at the starting line, because in December the Legislature pushed back by six months all the timelines that the ballot question had established. The regulatory commission that was supposed to be appointed by March won’t be appointed until September, the review of license applications that was supposed to begin in October won’t start until next April, and so on.

And now it’s possible that the finish line may be moved. There’s a brand new legislative committee that will review the 44 bills that were filed at the start of the new 2017-2018 session responding to the passage of the new law. With only a few exceptions, the bills are far more wary than enthusiastic. They propose stricter local control over retail marijuana establishments, a reduction in the amount of marijuana that can be grown at home, restrictions on potency (the law, as approved by the voters, provided that such restrictions would be imposed by the regulatory commission), restrictions on advertising, etc., etc.

Which is at least a little odd considering that the Department of Revenue has estimated that marijuana sales could bring in $64 million in new revenue in the first year of the law’s operation, and once again this year the state is digging through the sofa cushions for loose change to fix the perennial hole in the budget.

But before we conclude that our lawmakers are skittish about any new enterprise that may strike some members of the citizenry as morally problematic even as it brings in new revenue, let’s review the launch of the casino law.

At a comparable time (six months after the law was passed), the members of the new Massachusetts Gaming Commission had been appointed and staked to a $15 million line of credit. The buzz was all about the new jobs that were shortly to arrive and the new revenues that were shortly to replenish our recession-depleted treasury. (The marijuana law has gotten only a measly $300,000 to cover costs to date.)

The Gaming Commission got the licensing process underway with an award to Penn National Gaming to operate a slots parlor in Plainville. They did so with the rosy understanding that it would bring in as much as $300 million in revenue annually. But whoops. After the first year of operation, the revenue number was $160 million, barely half of the original estimate. What happened?

According to the Commission’s account, which the Globe reported credulously, the initial revenue projections were “extravagant” guesses offered by casino industry consultants. Well, okay, but what about the Commission’s due diligence in investigating that guesstimate? “We thought there was a flaw in their methodology but we couldn’t find it,” Crosby said.

Indeed. The Commission could not find the flaw, even when aided by the research of their own consultants, who also predicted that Plainville’s annual revenues would yield far more than $160 million — and who were rewarded by the state for such prognostications to the tune of a million bucks.

Water under the bridge, apparently. Anyway, now all is well. The Commission “could not be more pleased” with the Plainridge revenues, which are half of the original estimates and which is totally okay, because we now know the estimates were unrealistic to begin with. Construction has begun on two other casinos, with who knows how many more to follow, as Massachusetts duels Connecticut for supremacy in the gambling wars. Gambling is clearly the Legislature’s favored child, (as compared to marijuana), and even more cossetting may be on the way — the House of Representatives is proposing to let casinos continue to serve alcohol for hours after bars and restaurants must close. Meanwhile, marijuana legalization is in danger of being strangled in its crib.

Did the Legislature ever take note of the discrepancy between revenue expectations and revenue reality in Plainville? No evidence that they did, and if it’s brought to their attention, many seem prepared to laugh it off like Commissioner Crosby did: “we all seemed to be smoking something.”

]]>25http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/gambling-vs-marijuana-a-tale-of-two-vices/March for Science / Earth Dayhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/mz8I-X8GWDA/
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:30:05 +0000charley-on-the-mtaToday, appropriately on Earth Day, is the March for Science on the Boston Common, from 1pm to 4pm. It includes a star-studded cast of speakers, including MA’s own Gina McCarthy, former EPA head.

Would that this were not necessary! Science, of course, should not be partisan; it should be the basis on which political arguments are held. But scientists did not choose this fight. Science — the search for facts — is indeed under attack: Look at the attempted dismantling of the EPA by Scott Pruitt; the House Committee for Science’s attacks on climate scientists; Trump’s budget with its draconian cuts for science research (very bad for MA, incidentally); and his flirtation with anti-vaxxers. They’re going after weather satellites — because the satellites are telling them things they don’t want to hear.

That is crushing, weapons-grade stupidity, stubbornness and ignorance. These will go down in history with Lysenkoism, the Five-Year Plans, Great Leap Forward and other triumphs of inhumane ideology over observed facts.

The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

For whatever comes of the demonstrations, I’d like to humbly suggest the following goals/agenda for the scientific community in the public/political sphere:

Encourage the teaching of logic and critical thinking, at every level of education — from elementary school to post-doc. People ought to know p’s and q’s of logic, and how to identify pseudo-logic, how we are bewildered into accepting false or unproven things. Nigel Warburton’s Thinking from A to Z is a good anti-derp vaccine, to recognize logical fallacies. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos series was a terrific introduction not only to scientific discoveries, but the scientific process – hypothesis, testing, reproducibility, peer-review, etc. — by which such discoveries are made.

Define “pure” science as a search for facts and knowledge, not merely as an economic driver. We start heading into some ugly directions when science is only deemed “useful” if it makes someone money. In our rush to be practical and competitive, we teach facts — but little about how such facts are derived.

Defend the federal government as a reliable, neutral source of facts and information — and fund such sources. From fish stocks to global temperatures to unemployment statistics, the government provides the public with useful data upon which momentous decisions are made. Such research must be left absolutely professional, transparent, and non-partisan. Heretofore, it largely has been. But at any given time we are neck-deep in corporate propaganda, political and regulatory capture. We must absolutely hold that government research is on behalf of the greater public good. They work for us.

Relatedly, support federal funding for scientific research outside the government: Grants to universities from NIH, NSF, etc. Obvs.

Defend scientists from politicized attacks. Particularly I have climate scientists in mind, of course; but they have been the canaries in a coal mine (as it were) in confronting vastly powerful monied interests. The plain facts came up against the fossil industry’s billions, and the industry has tried to corral the facts using politics.

Defend academic tenure. See above. Defense from political attacks is one reason why tenure exists; it has been severely weakened at the University of Wisconsin, once one of the jewels of higher public education in the US.

I’m sure the organizers chose Earth Day for a reason: That climate science is an urgent topic for the public; and — not coincidentally — threatened with political retribution and silencing.

]]>2http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/march-for-science-earth-day/Senator Donnelly's Chief of Staff Will Enter Race to Succeed Himhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/MpI1phjbXFI/
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:53:50 +0000hesterprynneState House News is reporting that Cindy Friedman, chief of staff to the late Senator Ken Donnelly, will announce on Monday that she’s going to enter the race to succeed him, setting up a June 27 primary contest with Representative Sean Garballey, who announced last week. The general election is July 25.

For those of us lucky enough to have called Senator Ken Donnelly a friend, this has been a sad time. Ken put everyone else first – as a fireman, a legislator, and a husband, father, and grandfather – and we in Massachusetts are forever indebted to him for his lifetime of service and sacrifice. My thoughts continually turn to Ken’s family, and I pray that they find solace and strength in the fact that his legacy lives on in the innumerable lives he touched and enriched. Senator Donnelly and I were partners throughout the last decade and I want to make sure his work continues in the State Senate.

After much reflection and a long weekend of conversations with family, loved ones, and constituents, I have decided to run in the special election for the Senate seat to represent the people of Arlington, Woburn, Billerica, Lexington, and Burlington. While no one can replace Ken, I believe that my extensive legislative experience in local and state government and in our community, makes me a strong candidate for the State Senate. In the coming weeks, I encourage residents of the district to look at my record, look for campaign announcements as I begin this endeavor, and never hesitate to reach out directly if you have any questions or wish to get involved.

I look forward to campaigning across the district, to knocking on doors to hear voters’ concerns, and to highlight the work I’ve done on behalf of people in my district and across the Commonwealth. As a State Representative, I have worked to advance policies to protect the environment, maintain an inclusive society and ensure equal rights for all, preventing MBTA service cuts in our district and leading the effort on developing a real solution to the MBTA, improving conditions for children in foster care, and reducing income inequality to enable middle class families in Massachusetts to not just make ends meet but provide a better future for the next generation. I am proud of the work I have done and, with your support, I would be honored to continue this work as our next State Senator.

The primary election has been set for Tuesday, June 27 and the general election has been set for Tuesday July 25.

By Lee Harrison and Lisa Moscynski, Co-Chairs, Rural Issues Subcommittee of the Massachusetts Democratic Party

If Mark Twain were alive today, he would have been amused by Evan Horowitz’s April 7 article in the Globe, “City and Country Folk: We’re Mostly the Same in Massachusetts” because it proves his maxim that “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” And while many of us west of Rte. 495 shake our heads and chuckle in disbelief at Mr. Horowitz’s findings, articles like this can do real harm to real rural Massachusetts.

We don’t know how Mr. Horowitz defines “rural,” but in the vast majority of small towns west of Rte. 495, people definitely do not earn “approximately the same incomes” as people in Newton or Brookline. Of course, Mr. Horowitz uses averages, which is always a red flag, for a man can easily drown in a stream with an average depth of one foot. Besides, median values, i.e., half above and half below, are much better tools for comparison.

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, the annual median household income in Berkshire County was under $50,000 – the lowest in the state – with Hampden County next lowest with just over $50,000. Franklin and Bristol counties were under $60,000, as was Suffolk County, which includes many wealthy and poor families. At the other end of the income spectrum are Norfolk ($88,262) and Middlesex ($85118) counties, which shows how proximity to Boston skews the numbers. Worcester County ($65,313) is below Essex ($69,068), which is roughly the middle of the pack.

Unemployment rates show the same kind of discrepancies between Boston-centric and real rural Massachusetts. In February, while the unemployment rate for all of Massachusetts was 4.2%, in Berkshire County the rate was 5.3%, in Hampden 5.6%. Nantucket, Dukes, and Barnstable counties were even higher, but seasonal employment in those regions is certainly a factor. By contrast in Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties – Boston and its suburban ring – the rate was 3.5% or lower. This is a critical difference, a story that averages don’t tell, and Mr. Horowitz should know that.

And despite what Mr. Horowitz would like us to believe, voting our voting patterns differ markedly, too. As analyst Brent Benson notes: “While western Massachusetts, the Boston Metropolitan Area and other urban areas, the tip of Cape Cod, and the Islands show strong Democratic tendencies in statewide elections, Central Massachusetts, parts of the North Shore, and Southern Massachusetts – from Tolland in the west to Dennis in the east – are much more Republican.”

In fact, WBUR reported on April 12, that, “In central Massachusetts, you can travel from New Hampshire to Connecticut or Rhode Island entirely through towns that voted for President Trump.” The radio station also noted that, “As many as 90% of voters in the central Massachusetts towns where Donald Trump received more votes for president than Hillary Clinton still view the president ‘very positively’ and believe he will, eventually, deliver on his campaign promises.”

So, yes, contrary to what Mr. Horowitz has written, Massachusetts voters are indeed divided. And unless our leaders see past superficial and misleading articles like this and reach out to improve education, transportation, and broadband to expand the overall economies of our real rural areas, this gap will only increase.

]]>9http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/lies-damned-lies-and-rural-stats/A Few Random Thoughts Because I Got Nothin'http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/L6GOe9x3HtQ/
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:37:29 +0000charley-on-the-mta
This would seem to be ... An open thread. If your thoughts run more than 140 characters, this is your place. [This post is actually by JimC -- technical glitch is preventing that from showing ...]
- promoted by charley-on-the-mta

The short version is: In 2004, Jared Kushner’s father Charles, a real estate magnate in New Jersey and New York, pleaded guilty to a tax fraud scheme in which he claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony deductions for office expenses at the partnerships he created to manage the apartment buildings he owned. Kushner, a major donor to the Democratic Party, also pleaded guilty to fraudulently making hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in the names of employees and associates who didn’t know their names were being used. Finally, Kushner pleaded guilty to retaliating against a cooperating witness in the case — his sister. He did so by setting a trap in which he hired a prostitute to lure his sister’s husband into a sexual encounter in a New Jersey hotel, where the action was secretly photographed and videotaped. Kushner sent the pictures and tape to his sister as revenge, apparently motivated by Kushner’s belief that she and her husband were helping U.S. Attorney Christie and his prosecutors.

In our quest to return the world to sanity, I think we should emphasize Wisconsin. Wisconsin should be as blue as we are.

Betsy DeVos recently compared charter schools to Uber, apparently not for the first time. I find this pretty offensive.

The Tsarnaevs stole our sacred right to make fun of the marathon. When do we get that back?

The Globe had a surprisingly in depth piece looking at the racial divides that still persist in the Greater Boston Housing market.

Naomi Cordova didn’t want to buy a home in Brockton. In fact, she was dead set against it. But the working-class city is where Cordova ended up, despite the fact that she’s employed at a tech company in downtown Boston and makes more than $90,000 a year.

With a price tag limit of$275,000, little money for a down payment, and no desire to buy a fixer-upper, Cordova, a 34-year-old single mother of Puerto Rican and African-American descent, felt she had few other options. The city, which she associates mainly with its gang violence, isn’t where she feels she belongs.

It goes on to profile the challenges which include a predominately white field of realtors steering minorities toward majority minority communities, lack of credit and savings, and fear of living in an all white community.

And this segregation has persisted despite laws designed to reverse the damage done by decades of discriminatory housing practices. Some people are reluctant to leave neighborhoods where their family and friends have lived for generations; others are held back by reports of racism when black or Latino families move to white suburbs.

Finances are perhaps the biggest deterrent. People of color tend to have fewer assets and fewer family members they can borrow from — a racial wealth gap that puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to securing a loan.

And even when minorities achieve levels of affluence comparative to their white peers-they are still less likely to live among their income cohort and rather live among their racial cohort.

Even when they are in the same income bracket as whites, minorities in the Boston region are turned down for mortgages at a higher rate and live in substantially less well-off neighborhoods, according to a study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston. The average white family earning $78,000 a year in metro Boston lives in a neighborhood where the median household income is $72,400 a year, while the average black household earning $78,000 a year lives in an area where the median is $51,100 a year.

We should all be ashamed of this record.

In 86 of the state’s 351 cities and towns, not a single loan was made to a black or Latino home buyer

That fact alone should sober us from the delusion that we are a progressive state because we rejected Trump and sent Liz Warren to the Senate. By many other standards we still fall woefully short in income inequality and racial equity in housing. And housing is where it all starts. De facto segregation keeps minorities locked in unsafe neighborhoods, depresses their job prospects, their education prospects, reduces their lifespan, and crams minority voters in a few districts. It’s no accident our state legislature is one of the least diverse in the country as well. This is the kind of policy area a gubernatorial candidate needs to talk about. This is the kind of policy area Marty Walsh does not have the courage to address. And this is the kind of policy area we must be talking about on this blog and in the broader activist community.

]]>24http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/ma-a-segregated-state/Stability and stagnation in MAhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/bxYVStvFLKI/
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:03:46 +0000charley-on-the-mtaI was thinking about this since my last MBTA screed. Joan Vennochi beats me to the punch, using the poll showing Baker’s, uh, formidable popularity as a jumping-off point to show the underside of inequality:

Not for people stuck on the wrong side of the income gap, who are desperate for affordable housing and not in the market for a $4 million condo unit in a revitalized Downtown Crossing. Not for the homeless, whose numbers have nearly doubled over the past nine years, according to a recent study commissioned by the Boston Foundation. Not for kids stuck in schools hindered by an outdated school funding formula. And not for those rail commuters who just experienced three miserable days of delays attributed to defective new locomotives.

Massachusetts honks are justified. We are #1 in education; #1 in being health-insured; we have a strong economy and low unemployment. We also have a hellacious inequality gap, one which is gnawing at the quality of life for those not in a position to benefit from industries that require the extremely-well-trained. Personally I don’t wish to live in the East Coast version of a gilded, class-bifurcated Silicon Valley.

Neither the successes nor the challenges are really about Baker at all. These are the result of factors that pre-date Baker by decades, if not centuries. Actions taken or not taken by him and the legislature will also be felt in the generational terms.

Baker re-re-invented himself between 2010 (angry!) and 2014 (sober bean-counting manager). He was basically content to inherit a post-Deval Patrick political consensus: Play to our strengths in tech, health care and education; don’t do anything too crazy on taxes, up or down; manage the bureaucracies. This comports perfectly well with a House leadership that, if anything, is even more small-c conservative than he is.

But we have a political culture that has no interest in taking on the long-term, structural problems that put together, squeeze the comfort out of life for many. We are failing to adapt. There are no plans, no ambitions, no signature legislated efforts to address:

The cost of housing. It is an increasingly crushing burden for the non-wealthy; but even if you’ve been a homeowner and seen your asset increase in value, how can your young adult kids afford their own places? This has been festering at least since the tech boom of the late 90s got laundered into real estate assets. We have needed a regional (Greater Boston) plan to create non-luxury housing in quantity, and have never gotten action, or even a clear vision from legislature nor governor.

The decay of the MBTA. A related economic justice issue. A reliable T is cheaper (and cleaner) than a car, providing a little economic cushion for the non-rich. And when it’s not reliable, one’s hold on a job is precarious. The Baker administration’s efforts on the T are technical, not adaptive: Save a few bucks here and there, but then what are you left with?

The cost of health care. I actually have to give some credit to Baker — and take away from the House — for proposing price growth caps to address the confiscatory pricing of Partners et al. ”Health insurance” for nearly everyone doesn’t obviate rising costs, which cut into household budgets and employers’ ability to hire or raise wages. Speaker DeLeo ensured once again that we failed to act firmly.

Cost of higher education. Public higher education has always seemed an afterthought in Massachusetts political culture. We see the same administrative featherbedding and high salaries in the UMass system as in the higher ed system at large. And now UMass Boston — which should be a gateway to the middle class — is $30 million in the hole, cancelling classes. Wrong direction.

These are big-picture problems that require Vision, or Progress – which is really just adaptation. Our Governor and legislature seem content to live off the achievements of those who designed and invested in our current comforts and (relative, contingent) successes. Our successes are not equally shared, and create their own set of problems. Assets are prone to decay, and in some cases (the T, our real estate market) they are already at a breaking point. The time frame of public investment and planning is generational, not the next election.

On April 6, 2017 the Huffington Post published my piece arguing that if we’re going to increase defense spending, we should target the enemy.

The piece observes that

The budget President Trump released this month increases Defense Department spending by $54 billion, or 10 percent. It increases Homeland Security expenditures by almost 7 percent. At the same time, it decreases spending by the Environmental Protection Agency by an astounding 31 percent, and eliminates EPA spending on climate programs. “As to climate change…we’re not spending money on that anymore,” according to Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It’s ‘a waste of your money.”

But in fact, the failure to address climate change has profound security implications, which U.S. defense and intelligence agencies—and not just traditional environmental groups—have raised for decades.

In 2007, a report commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses and including 11 retired generals—eight four-star and three three-star—refers to climate change as “a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,” in part by causing water shortages and damaging food production. The report says that 40 percent of the world’s population gets at least half its drinking water from mountain glaciers that are disappearing.

In a study commissioned by the C.I.A., the National Research Council said in 2012that the U.S. is unprepared to address the catastrophes that climate change will create.

Further, according to the Huffington Post piece,

In 2014 the Pentagon released a report referencing the dangerous impacts of climate change on food and water supplies, damage to infrastructure, the spread of disease, and mass migration. The report said: “These developments could undermine already-fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently-stable governments…. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.”

Even President Trump’s Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, agrees. In January, Secretary Mattis said in written comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.”

Secretary Mattis has opined before on climate change and its military implications. In 2010, the United States Joint Forces Command released a document entitled “The Joint Operating Environment,” with a Foreword signed “J.N. Mattis, General, U.S. Marines Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command.”

The report lists climate change “as one of the ten trends most likely to impact the Joint Force.” It references shrinking Arctic sea ice as opening new areas for natural resource exploitation that may raise tensions among Arctic nations. It cites a 2007 event in which “two Russian submersibles made an unprecedented dive 2.5 miles to the arctic sea floor, where one ship dropped a titanium capsule containing a Russian flag.”

Referencing sea level rise caused by climate change, the Joint Forces Command report notes that “one-fifth of the world’s population as well as one-sixth of the land area of the world’s largest urban areas are located in coastal zones less than ten meters above sea level.”

One-fifth of the world’s population obviously dwarfs the numbers of refugees now moving west in Europe, with enormous implications for geopolitical instability.

As progressives across the Commonwealth are looking to get more engaged in politics at the state level, a new resource from Progressive Massachusetts (scorecard.progressivemass.com) can help voters see where their State Representatives and State Senators stand on critical issues and bills.

Voters now can easily monitor how their senators and representatives on Beacon Hill are voting on priorities identified by the grassroots organization. Bills from the Progressive Mass Legislative Agenda are highlighted, focusing on policies advancing economic and social justice, democratic participation, and investments in a sustainable future.

Caroline Bays, co-chair of chapter Progressive Watertown, argues that the best way to fight the reactionary agenda from Washington is through vigorous leadership at the state level.

“MA should be a leader in treating health care as a human right, dismantling racist mass incarceration, funding quality education for all our kids, fighting climate change, guaranteeing a living wage, and protecting the rights of our immigrant neighbors. But despite a Democratic legislature, we are not. The scorecard helps show where we need more courage and leadership. If not during a Trump and Paul Ryan era, then when?”

Many voters new to state-level advocacy are surprised to learn how difficult it is to track their elected representatives’ positions, even while some Beacon Hill insiders caution that scorecards are a limited view into a legislator’s record.

Yet, “roll call votes are one of the few records available to us,” co-chair of the Progressive Mass Issues Committee, Jonathan Cohn, said. “A fuller picture could be achieved with transparency in Committee votes, open meeting laws, and more roll calls from the floor.”

Progressive Mass began its scorecard in 2013, as a densely packed grid of color-coded pluses and minuses. The clean and user-friendly new presentation of was developed by Alex Holachek, a Cambridge-based front-end developer.

“Progressive Mass’s research helped me assess my legislators’ priorities; it was everything I was trying to learn, but the presentation was daunting,” she said. “In developing this new searchable and sortable interface, my aim is to expand the audience for this valuable work.”

After November’s election, many tech innovators and designers are eager to put their skills to work for progressive causes, according to Harmony Wu, who is on the Progressive Mass board.

Progressive Massachusetts was founded 5 years ago by grassroots organizers from the Patrick and Obama campaigns.

]]>4http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/a-new-web-app-to-make-it-easier-for-voters-to-see-legislators-records/Baker to the left of House -- on several mattershttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/8Q-AwJvHo0w/
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:28:40 +0000charley-on-the-mtaLet this not go unnoticed:

House leaders unveiled a $40.3 billion state budget Monday that significantly tempered two controversial plans by Governor Charlie Baker to tackle the cost of health care. Lawmakers slashed his proposed fee on businesses to fund state medical costs, and they rejected a plan to cap the prices charged by hospitals.

… In their spending blueprint, House leaders also axed a plan by the governor to rein in health care spending by capping the prices charged by expensive hospitals. Speaker Robert A. DeLeo cast hospitals as crucial to the state’s economy and said they should not be subjected to new cost-control measures at a time when Congress continues to consider repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

“Hospitals as crucial to the state’s economy” — whereas every business and individual who pays health insurance premiums is chopped liver? Isn’t this a plain case of serving a special interest — one company in particular, Partners — literally at everyone else’s expense?

So on the uninsuring-employer fee (reminiscent of the 2005-6 ballot issue that led to Chapter 58, btw), Baker is to the left of DeLeo. On the hospitals, former insurance exec Baker was willing to gore a very powerful ox. He also proposed to tax Airbnb.

This is a very ironic position for those of us who have very progressive reps who nonetheless voted to maintain DeLeo as Speaker-for-Life. For all of our state’s considerable strengths and achievements, we have a continuing, growing problem of affordability and inequality. Every criticism I’ve made of Baker’s lack of long-term planning (e.g. the T) applies doubly to DeLeo. And he makes his membership look bad. It’s a Catch-22 for them: Vote him in, and ensure that nothing truly progressive/adaptive can happen; or vote against him and lose whatever chairmanships, power/influence one has coming.

One problem with the way that corporations treat citizens (as employees or customers) is that when there is a snafu, the corporation says what it will do and the citizen can only take it or leave it. That’s not a “level playing field”, as I see it. There were regulations regarding what United needed to offer, but I think we all know about regulatory capture and the reality that many of the rules are clearly one sided.

I’ve been in sales/customer service for most of my working years. I learned a valuable lesson from one co-worker who showed me that, after a mistake on our part, it’s better to ask a customer what they think is fair rather than offer something up front. It helps the customer in trusting the outcome, and levels the playing field. I asked him, “What if the customer is completely unreasonable?” He replied, “Most people want to be fair, reasonable, and respected. Besides, if the person is unreasonable, nothing we offer up front will suit them.”

I used that approach for many years and it’s never let me down.

So here is my suggestion to United and any other company in that predicament:

Next time you are oversold on a flight, announce to the seat holders that you need to re-purchase two seats (or whatever) and you would like any seat holder willing to do so, to please offer their proposals in writing and when you have collected all the proposals, assuming you have at least two, take the best two and move on.

Whatever that price is, it will be lower, in the long run, to what you wind up with doing it the current way.

]]>7http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/united/Cold War 2.0 (Might as Well Call It What It Is)http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/PthW2SXCirg/
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:13:19 +0000mark-bail
Meanwhile...Eric Trump contends that the U.S. airstrike on Syria last week proves not only that his dad is "presidential," but also that he's not connected to Putin in any way.
- promoted by hesterprynne

Agent-operational measures aimed at exerting useful influence on aspects of the political life of a target country which are of interest, its foreign policy, the solution of international problems, misleading the adversary, undermining and weakening his positions, the disruption of his hostile plans, and the achievement of other aims.

In 2009, a number of Central and Eastern European leaders, including Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, wrote a letter expressing their concern for the United States’ lack of attention and concern for them in the post-Soviet world.

The letter was prompted by an occasion: the Russia-Georgia war in which Russian-backed separatists in Georgia started a civil war in the country. The separatists were a proxy for the Russians, and the result of the war, in spite of protests from the international community, was that Russia essentially annexed two Georgian provinces.

Although the national security community was well aware of the problems Russia presented to Central and Eastern Europe, neither the Bush or Obama Administrations really addressed their concerns. Both administrations were almost certainly distracted by the threat of terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia proceeded to invade Ukraine and Crimea while other countries in the region suffered the corrosive effects of Russian-sponsored political and economic effects of war by other means.

Unlike Russia’s military actions, which were reported in the media, though with little context or analysis, it’s non-military tactics have been largely unnoticed. Even as it was reported that Russia was taking an active role in tilting the presidential election to Donald Trump, there was little or no attempt to understand the manipulation as part of a larger Russian larger strategy. Known as the Gerasimov Doctrine, the Russians recognize

“a ‘blurring of the lines between war and peace,’ and that ‘nonmilitary means of achieving military and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, exceeded the power of weapons in their effectiveness.’ Gerasimov argues for asymmetrical actions that combine the use of special forces and information warfare that create “a permanently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state.”

Special forces need not be involved to follow the doctrine. There is plenty that can be accomplished with active measures, the whole of Russian political warfare that ranges from propaganda to assassination. It was active measures that the United States experienced during the 2016 Presidential election. Propaganda isn’t new, but the technology to spread it and delicacy of the information ecosystem have changed.

The seeds of more concerning strategies, those that have been successful in smaller, more easily influenced countries, seemed to have been already been sown in the Trump Administration. The Kremlin Playbook (2009), a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, describes the process for infiltrating and influencing Central and Eastern European countries:

Russian-linked entities work to support select state actors who in turn work on their behalf. This support can include investing in rising politicians, cultivating relationships with prominent businessmen, or helping to ensure that its business affiliates become well positioned in government. From a position of authority and power, these local affiliates can work to expand a system of Russian patronage by ensuring that lucrative contracts and rewards are doled out to Russia’s preferred partners, who then are beholden to the Kremlin’s network and become instruments of its influence. Russia’s networks can be so extensive that they penetrate government institutions and investigative bodies, disabling a democracy’s ability to conduct oversight as well as ensure transparency and accountability, which erodes the rule of law and renders it vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.

Capture of the American economy or political system would seem to be a long shot for the Russians, but Trump’s and his administration’s connections to Russia are concerning. If Trump were somehow able to lift or render ineffective sanctions on Russia, their efforts would be amply rewarded. From Rex Tillerson to Wilbur Ross to Paul Manafort to Michael Flynn to Trump himself, there are troubling connections to Russia, connections that make investigations imperative.

State capture is not the only Russian goal.

First and foremost, the Kremlin is interested in ensuring that it is able to maximize the economic benefits of its engagement with the region and further enrich members of its inner circle as they seek opportunities beyond the Russian economy. Another equally vital motivation is to weaken the EuropeanUnion and the West’s desirability, credibility, and moral authority, particularly among EU aspirant countries such as Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, in order to reduce their enthusiasm to cooperate with and integrate into these structures. A final motivation is Russia’s desire to elevate itself and its model of governance as a more attractive alternative to the U.S.-dominated international order: an illiberal sovereign “democracy” that is economically controlled by a select inner circle.

Every country attempts to increase its economic advantage and present itself as desirable and moral, but like the Soviet Union before it, Russia’s goals are the antithesis of American ideals. The United States has a very mixed record when it comes to exerting its influence abroad, but Russia’s has always been worse because it has never cared about democracy. Its totalitarian days may be over, but Russia’s preference for authoritarianism has not changed. Colluding with the mafia and secret police, the Russian government has aided, abetted, and participated in stealing entire industries and capturing government from both the people of Russia and smaller Central and Eastern European countries. Not infrequently, the Russia government assassinates its citizens, particularly its reporters and critics. The United States may not live up to its democratic ideals, but we certainly have them.

The 2016 Presidential election was a disaster for the United States, but it has paid dividends to Russian in confusion and mistrust among our allies and the world. Populating the White House with a combination of relatives and incompetents (the two aren’t mutually exclusive) who lie to the American people as a matter of course, neglect to fill hundreds of government positions, our government is a disorganized mess. Entire government departments are being run by people opposed to their missions. Less than 100 days into the Trump Administration, American desirability, credibility, and moral authority have taken a major hit.

We have elected an international joke, a corrupt, narcissistic, incompetent demagogue, and Russia played a role in making it happen. Time will tell the extent of their role.

Come celebrate the launch of Climate XChange‘s second Carbon Pricing Awareness Tesla Raffle. There will be have music, drinks, great conversation, and most exciting of all, they’ll kick off the raffle! Teslas will be on display outside of the brewery, and you will have an opportunity to purchase raffle tickets at the event.

]]>0http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/carbon-pricing-awareness-tesla-raffle/Trump vs. our climate: We are not helpless.http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/Wlcg56g2fMc/
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:55:51 +0000charley-on-the-mtaThings are very very bad on the environmental front. Trump issued his executive orders intending to do away with much of Obama’s climate legacy. And the sociopath Scott Pruitt is already going about gutting the EPA with great abandon — and questionable legality. Read this heartbreaking article about the good professionals trying to do their jobs at the EPA now:

To see the effects of climate change, Cox invited Pruitt to “visit the Pacific Northwest and see where the streams are too warm for our salmon to survive in the summer; visit the oyster farmers in Puget Sound whose stocks are being altered from the oceans becoming more acidic; talk to the ski area operators who are seeing less snowpack and worrying about their future; and talk to the farmers in Eastern Washington who are struggling to have enough water to grow their crops and water their cattle. The changes I am referencing are not impacts projected for the future, but are happening now.”

Trump’s proposed EPA budget is the vehicle for his science-doubting policies.

His 31 percent budget decrease would be the largest among agencies not eliminated. It would result in layoffs for 25 percent of the staff and cuts to 50 EPA programs, The Washington Post reported Sunday. Lost would be more than half the positions in the division testing automaker fuel efficiency claims.

What insane, reckless greed would cause us to destroy an extraordinarily successful agency, one who counts its successes in lives saved and improved, and in billions and trillions of dollars saved? Which saves kids from lead poisoning and asthma, and would save them a livable planet? Because it advocates for the public good versus narrow, greedy interests all the time. For these folks, it is their job. Of course, almost by definition, they are under threat.

Let’s not sugar-coat it: We are up against the wall. But we are not helpless. There are many, many levers of influence, and if one doesn’t go our way, we grab another.

Note that it will take years to unwind the Clean Power Plan. It is, after all, the implementation of law — one confirmed by Massachusetts vs. EPA, which turns 10 years old today! And even more than federal action, we can affect the actions of states and municipalities, many of which are continuing to lead the way on reducing emissions. Trump may want to bring back coal, but he can’t make us buy it.

What can we do? Good gravy, what can’t we do? Trump has given us all a middle finger — but there are ways to give it right back.

State:

Call your State Rep and Senator and tell them to support S.1849, a bill requiring that MA use 100% renewable energy by 2050. Happy that my rep Sean Garballey and Sen. Ken Donnelly are among the sponsors. You know the number, 617-722-2000 is the State House switchboard. Go do it!

And while you’re on the phone, mention that they should revisit last year’s energy bill and add a 2% annual increase in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. That adds up!

Hug an environmental lawyer; and thenfund one. These things are going to be tied up in court for a while. Remember that the Clean Power Plan is an implementation of law; the EPA is required to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

Sen. Brian Schatz has called Pruitt’s hollowing out of the EPA “a national scandal” and voiced doubt via Twitter that his actions are legal. Again, that’s what lawyers are for.

Join an Indivisible group and show up to your reps’ town hall meetings during the recess. We need to protect the EPA in the same way — and for many of the same reasons — that we protect our health care. Make Republicans fear an anti-EPA budget vote, for instance.

Or if you prefer, go to the March for Science 4/22, an event with considerable overlap of interest with the Climate march. In either of these events, there will be plenty of folks with clipboards or apps trying to get people to dig even deeper.

I am uncomfortable as an enviro lifestyle-monger — all have fallen short of the glory, after all — but surely there are ways we can change behavior to reduce demand for destructive things. You are not the only one: People make conscientious choices all the time. And you don’t have to convert your whole lifestyle all at once: Make one change at a time. Like those ads on the Sox radio broadcasts … “It all starts with just one thing.” Whatever your next lifestyle tweak you could make … now would be a great time to do it.

If you do have to drive, get a verrrry efficient car. The hybrids, even while they have a somewhat higher initial sticker price, have comparable or lower total costs of ownership than other cars. You will be much more of a stranger to the gas station attendant. Yes it matters — still one of the biggest ways you can cut down emissions.

I compare the energy in the climate/enviro movement to the health care mobilization, and I’m often a little disappointed that it doesn’t come up with the same urgency. We seem to have forgotten what it was like without environmental protection. My aspiration is that climate and environmental concerns may burrow deep into the culture — so that it’s ubiquitous, pervasive, and simply shapes the decisions we make every day. In the long term that will defeat Trump and Pruitt, regardless of what rottenness they have in store now.

]]>6http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/trump-vs-our-climate-we-are-not-helpless/Internet Privacy: A Chance for Massachusetts to Confound the National GOPhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/7SUBBdAMvno/
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:06:52 +0000hesterprynneLast year, President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission ruled that broadband providers may not sell information about their customers’ internet browsing habits without permission.

But last Monday, the President scrapped that rule, signing into law a bill that had been approved in both chambers of Congress (on strict party-line votes) to allow telecommunications giants like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to collect and sell that information, notwithstanding any objections from us, its source.

Now this privacy battle has moved to the state level: Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Montana have been pursuing ways to restore the privacy protections that were jettisoned by the Republicans in D.C.

And as of Friday, Massachusetts has joined them. Republican Senator Bruce Tarr, joined by his five Senate GOP colleagues, has filed legislation to prohibit broadband providers from using or selling their customers’ internet histories without permission, and several Democratic lawmakers have already signed on as co-sponsors. Let’s hear it for bipartisanship.

You can help to get this bill moving in the State House by calling your Senator and Representative and asking them to co-sponsor Senate Docket 2157: An Act to Secure Internet Security and Privacy. Contact info here.

The next time someone says the New York Times is biased against Trump, show them the past few days’ headlines and articles in the aftermath of the Syria Tomahawk strike. The Times blares – without any sense of caution or reason – that Trump was shocked into action by the chemical attack. I cannot claim to know whether his shock was genuine.

I do know that I have eyes, ears, and a memory: Trump displayed no such revulsion after 2013 Syrian chemical attack on children. Why the sudden “shock” now? Should we simply accept that his “shock” this time is the actual reason for his decision to strike? I don’t think so.

We still have our sense of reason, no matter what media outlet spoon-feeds us this line, no matter what self-interested foreign policy analysts gush that this makes Trump a real president. (John Heilemann and many others)

We are expected to suddenly forget all of the bizarre connections between Trump cronies and Russia, to forget about all of the lies about these connections that persisted until the Trump cronies were forced to admit that they in fact had multiple direct contacts with Russian intelligence, and then finally to pretend that a few Tomahawk missiles falling on asphalt (after warning Russia ahead of time) would not create a public relations distance between Trump and Russia that would be remarkably convenient to Mr. Trump.

Keolis Commuter Services operated the required number of locomotives for regular service during only four of 23 weekdays in March, a troubling statistic behind some of the many cancellations and delays that have recently plagued their lines.

…Cancellations have become particularly noticable in recent days, as several commuter rail trains were cancelled for the second day in a row, sending commuters scrambling for alternatives. Trains were cancelled on the Stoughton, Lowell, and Newburyport/Rockport line on Thursday.

And there are always technical excuses: It’s the trains, or repair equipment or some dog-ate-my-homework that the public should simply never have to hear about. If you run a train line, it’s your job to have processes to deal with things like that.

And as I’ve said before, it’s not merely Keolis, the T, and the Baker administration’s failure. One may remember — one could be forgiven for forgetting — that we have a state auditor. An auditor that touted finding $1.8 million in uncollected fares back in November, but doesn’t seem particularly interested in the core mission of getting people to work, or in the billion+ in cost overruns on the Green Line. To state the wildly obvious, the state desperately needs contracting reform with regard to T’s infrastructure.

What is Suzanne Bump doing? Does her office lack the personnel, the expertise, or the interest?

Meanwhile the Baker administration is promising nothing other than a continuation of the T’s death spiral: More cuts in weekend service. The marketing strategy is quite amazing: Trains don’t run often enough to be convenient, so you don’t get as many riders as you might, and then you cut service because nobody’s using it.

On weekends, when the earliest train doesn’t leave Worcester until 7 a.m., she starts her shift at a Dunkin’ Donuts near the Framingham stop later than usual. During snowstorms, she leaves early to catch the last train, sacrificing a few hours of pay to avoid being stranded.

Without weekend train service, Sterling, 26, would probably look for another job. The cost of Uber or taxi rides would eat up too much of her paycheck.

So when Sterling learned that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority was considering cutting back service on the weekends — or eliminating it altogether — her eyes widened with alarm.

It would be one thing if we actually had prospects for a better future for the T. We could have contracting reform, accountability, a rider-centered customer service attitude — and funding from Bob DeLeo and the legislature.

Now that Trump is actually bombing someone, everyone in Washington loves him. And they don’t mind that he is paraphrasing Dr Strangelove. I watched on MSNBC last night and it was the first time in a couple years, at least, that there was no feeling of discontinuity when they cut away to crazy Trump.

“He has to do it, everybody’s watching!” emoted Jennifer Rubin, while the other panelists chanted “Don’t Stop, Don’t Stop!”

So what do you think? Will Trump go for multiple orgasms? Does he have the precious bodily fluids for it?

A few months ago, I would have said this was KellyAnne Conway, making Trump understand that symbolism matters, and these are small concessions to make (yes they couldn’t tell Nunes directly, but White Houses have pull). Now … I don’t know. Trump himself maybe? KAC seems off her game lately.

But again … I’ll take it. Any thoughts?

]]>6http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/cosmetic-moves-that-might-matter-nunes-recuses-himself-bannon-off-nsc/"Just because every other country can..."http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/osiWy80yK18/
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:05:00 +0000mannygoldstein
Whip the Dems ... But beat the R's.
- promoted by charley-on-the-mta

Seems like some of our Representatives in DC are AWOL on Medicare for all. I’m sorely disappointed by my rep,Kennedy – doesn’t seem to be ”Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?” material. I called Kennedy’s office yesterday and got a verbal shrug. “Idunno?”

I politely suggest that these Reps get called by their constituents.

At least health fare is a true example of American Exceptionalism: almost every other industrialized nation ensures that all citizens (at least) get quality health care at reasonable costs. In the US… not so much on any of those.

Nearly 20% of Montanans split their ballot between Donald Trump for President and Steve Bullock for Governor. Here’s how he did it according to the Prospect which asked him what he thought about this crossover appeal:

It was his story.

“I think Montanans knew that I was fighting for them. I spoke about public education, public lands, public money, and those are things that affect us all. We hunt, we fish, and I asked whether we are promoting all Montanans’ interests or only narrow special interests, and how we are going to build folks up individually.”
Justin Gest and Tyler Reny

Perhaps realizing that this doesn’t exactly coincide with most people’s impression of the president, he added, “If there is overlap, it’s making people know that I will fight for them, and that I work for them. I’m not sure that the values are that different in Manhattan, Montana; Manhattan, Kansas; or Manhattan, New York. People want to feel safe, have good schools, and want their kids to do better than they did.

Period. Good schools, good jobs, strong families. That’s literally the three things voters want. They want to make sure they’re are jobs and investment in this country. Trump talked about jobs constantly, he talked about rebuilding this country constantly, and he talked about fighting opioids in the country and gangs in the city. The proof is in the pudding-he was talking out of his ass and didn’t have an agenda. We won the popular vote talking about ours. That said-we won’t win the presidency again without converting this 20% of winnable white working class voters. The NY Times data confirms this. So reaching out to them is an important and vital part of the progressive project.

Instead it is to look to the future-how do we sell our policies to people who haven’t been listening to us-since we haven’t been talking to them-for a generation?

In interviews with locals, I found exhaustion with detached national Democrats, and a pervasive appreciation of straight talk. Bullock is connecting with his brand of progressive populism—a focus on providing solid public education to level the playing field, protecting access to public lands, and maintaining public services without increasing taxes or instituting a sales tax.

Bullock and Montana Dem Chair Nancy Keenan seem to get this:

when I asked Bullock what national Democrats need to do, he said: “They need to recognize that there are no such things as national issues; they’re all local. It’s not about pigeonholing issues to score votes. Rule number one is to show up, and if you’re just going to write off parts of the country, your success will be limited. I think that we need to have a 50-state strategy. In 2008, you’d be tripping over Obama people [in Montana]. President Obama brought his wife and kids to the Butte Fourth of July Parade. They lost Montana by 2 points, and he came after the primary.”

And it includes a great quote from Nancy Keenan-no right wing Dem-she once headed NARAL, but she hits the nail on the head with why Hillary failed to connect:

“The Democratic Party is full of these damned do-gooders,” Keenan carried on. “A lot of the people who run as Democrats think that if we could just get into the depths and detail of the policy and make people understand it, then we’ll get elected. Oh, hell no! The detail doesn’t matter, people! What’s the first rule of politics? Show up. Everywhere. The second rule is: Show up where they didn’t want or ask you to come. I used to show up at the stock growers’ convention or the Chamber of Commerce conventions, and they’d all ask, ‘What the hell is she doing here?’” She guffawed. “And I’d tell everyone how terrific it was to be with them.”

Now this Bullock has to be awful on guns, the environment, and choice right? He isn’t.

Bullock has earned that trust by first identifying with Montanans, and that has lent him the credibility to veto 124 bills in the 2013 and 2015 legislative sessions—more vetoes over two consecutive sessions than any Montana governor in more than 40 years—and also pass progressive litmus tests without alienating too many social conservatives. He has voted against broadening access to guns, enrolled Montana in Obamacare, pushed for universal preschool, new funding for infrastructure, and was honored with an award from Planned Parenthood while I was in town. Meanwhile, bills like the apprenticeship tax incentive serve veterans and Montanans without university educations, and keep business owners happy.

In so doing, Bullock eases his constituents into a progressive future by weaning them off the past instead of insisting on a sharp break.

Is he my first choice for President? No. But he is the kind of Democrat we have to start recruiting in the states that have been tilting against us for awhile. And frankly, I could trust he would carry Montana, the Rust Belt states we lost, and still support progressives to the Court. He even led a statewide assault against Citizens United. This is the right kind of mix for the future. It’s the new form of centrism-economically populist, socially progressive but in a more libertarian way, and focusing on easing the transition to the info economy. Jobs, schools, families. That’s it. And it builds on the bottom up model that Paul Simmons talks about. Get local people to be the messengers for progressives policies who can spin them to the local culture.

Coming Up: Beto O’Rourke and Jason Kander.

]]>3http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/democrat-to-watch-steve-bullock/What's the Diehlhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/6JljJ8Qe8Vo/
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 22:55:46 +0000charley-on-the-mtaLast time I make that joke. Huh.

Whitman State Rep Geoff Diehl is poised to take on Elizabeth Warren next year. It sounds like he’ll announce tomorrow.

As Donald Trump’s state co-chair, he has sounded to me like a smoother Curt Schilling. I suspect his actual very conservative brand politics will find very little purchase in a general election beyond die-hard Herald readers … but I should not be in the business of projecting confidence.

I’ve got some connections with his team that I made friends with and are loyal in a campaign-related way. I think the president himself sees the senior senator as a major obstacle to a lot of what he wants to do,” Diehl, a Whitman Republican, told the Herald yesterday.

“She opposed every single nominee and forced a slow walk of his Cabinet. So I don’t think there’s any love lost between the two,” he added. “And I would say when the time comes, he’d be in support of whomever wins the nomination to replace her.”

The auditor’s review under the Pacheco Law required Bump’s office to compare the proposed costs of privatizing the services with continuing to carry them out with state employees in the Department of Mental Health.

In a report released yesterday, the auditor maintains that MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid administration agency, made questionable, improper, or duplicate payments to MBHP totaling $193 million between July 2010 and 2015. Those allegedly improper payments appear to have been made under the same contract with MBHP that served as the vehicle for privatizing the mental health services last year.

Under that umbrella contract, known as the Primary Care Clinician Plan, MassHealth paid MBHP more than $2.6 billion between 2010 and 2015.

Given the finding that MassHealth’s total payments to MBHP include $193 million in questionable, improper, or duplicate payments, it would seem it has just gotten harder to argue that privatization of human services has been a great deal for the state.

In fact, it seems possible that one of the reasons MBHP was able to offer bids from two providers for privatizing the mental health services that were $7 million lower than what the state employees could offer was that the company knew it could more than make the money back in duplicate payments from MassHealth.

A description of the MBHP billing arrangement by the state auditor paints a picture of the company as a middle-man between MassHealth and providers of actual services under the Primary Care Clinician Plan (PCCP) contract.

According to the audit, the Commonwealth pays MBHP a fixed monthly fee under the PCCP contract for each member enrolled in MBHP. MBHP then “recruits and oversees networks of third-party direct care providers who assume responsibility for providing a range of covered behavioral-health care.” MBHP subsequently “pays the providers using the monthly…premiums received from the Commonwealth.”

MBHP’s real role here appears to be as a pass-through of state funds. What MBHP really seems to add to the process is an apparently large layer of bureaucracy.

As we pointed out, Taberner was put in a position to manage the contract with the company he used to work for.

State employee unions, including the Service Employees International Local 509, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 93 did challenge Bump’s initial approval of the privatization arrangement with MBHP last year for the southeastern Massachusetts mental health services.

The unions maintained that the lower bids submitted for the privatization contract assumed major cuts in staffing at mental health facilities in southeastern Massachusetts, which would be likely to result in lower-quality services. They argued that the Pacheco Law requires that service quality not be affected.

The Pacheco Law requires a state agency seeking to privatize services to submit to the state auditor a comparison of a bid or bids from outside contractors with a bid from existing employees based on the cost of providing the services in-house “in the most cost-efficient manner.” If the state auditor concurs that the outside bidder’s proposed contract is less expensive and equal or better in quality than what existing employees have proposed, the privatization plan will be likely to be approved. If not, the auditor is likely to rule that the service must stay in-house.

An SEIU official said to us yesterday the union is reviewing the auditor’s latest audit. We think that at the very least, the audit calls into question the savings claim in privatizing the southeastern Massachusetts mental health services.

More broadly, the audit of the MassHealth-MBHP contract calls into question MassHealth’s system of internal controls in managing state’s $13 billion Medicaid program.

It appears the MassHealth internal control system is so inadequate that the administration was unaware that hundreds of millions of dollars in improper payments were being made to its major contractor. Yet the administration was eager to reward MBHP’s efforts to eliminate state employees and cut staffing for mental health services in order to save a reported $7 million.

The MassHealth-MBHP debacle should serve as a warning to legislators and others that privatizing state services is not an automatic panacea to problems in service delivery and to high costs. Privatization comes with potentially high costs of its own, particularly when the state forsakes its role, as it appears to have done in this case, of adequately managing and overseeing its contracts with service providers.

I don’t know how much it costs each time the president hangs out at Mar-a-Lago or how much it is costing us to keep his penthouse bride and son comfortable in the Big Apple, but one thing is for sure: this crap has to stop. What’s worse, Trump did not start it. Sure, he has brought it to a whole new level, but again, he did not start it. As I recall, President Obama and President Clinton much preferred schmoozing with the wealthy sort on Martha’s Vineyard over the working class charm of Camp David. So before we Democrats start to whine about Trump’s house, we have to do some housekeeping ourselves.

The presidency is a job. It has a salary, an expense account, and living quarters included. In addition, it has a vacation retreat for the president and the family of the president to enjoy. These accommodations are specifically designed to minimize the cost of protecting the president as well as providing the best possible protection. The people have paid for these facilities and we continue to pay for their daily upkeep.

If the president or the members of the president’s immediate family wants to live elsewhere, that should not be the financial responsibility of the taxpayer. Furthermore, if the president wants a vacation and wants to spend it somewhere other than Camp David, again, that should not be the responsibility of the taxpayer. I suppose we could and probably should make an exception if the president wanted to stay at one of our national parks.

Really, fellow Democrats, we need to do this once we regain the presidency. Anything else is simply wrong, and will result in further losses, more Trumps, and do we really want that?

]]>12http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/04/fiscal-responsibility-promise-1-for-democrats-if-we-ever-get-the-white-house-back/Comment of the day: Why strong Ward/Precinct culture mattershttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/eVKVi0yN5sk/
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:46:39 +0000charley-on-the-mtaMoving from “governing by abstraction” to relational, real-world people stuff. From paulsimmons, an elaboration on an old Mike Dukakis riff — read the whole thing — heck, print it out and keep it handy:

One of those little irritations in my life is that we as citizens have ceded too much power to outside structures – the fact that many of those structures operate with the best intentions is moot – to the detriment of community-accountable grassroots politics.

Over the past forty years, structured Party organisms have been allowed to wither on the vine, the result (in my opinion) is a tendency to govern by abstraction. Corollary to this is a tendency to think of electioneering as synonymous with marketing. A direct result of this was the shifting of resources from permanent, locally-based, volunteer-staffed field organizations to media operations and paid operatives.

The elite political wisdom at the time of Keverian’s Speakership was that there was no need for Party-centric grassroots structures; that elected officials should govern as individuals, with power bases comprised of organized advocacy groups reinforced by media buys. It was this cultural corruption that created chaos in the House. In this context I use the word “corruption” in the software sense, not morally or legally.

The result of this was an elitist culture that soon morphed into class bigotry. It is no coincidence (as the commies used to say) that the first systematic privatization of State services in the Commonwealth occurred in human services, particularly in mental health. We are in something close to a zero-sum game, where average citizens have little to no knowledge of the politics and personalities that are in play on local, state, and national levels.

A first start for progressives would be to get adequate information about the actual dynamics of state politics. THis would require a division of labor, wherein folks who know the actual internal dynamics can obtain accurate information about (for example) the chances of a given bill getting out of committee and why. This requires the ability to relate to the worker bees on various staffs, and the sense to keep confidences when necessary.

Thus, political approached can be premised upon real-world dynamics, not infantile morality plays. for example, it would not hurt to have people capable of reading the text of a bill and analyzing line items and translating same into understandable English. (A good source for the latter is the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.)

On the ground, we have to come to terms with the facts that the most credible surrogates for issues and candidates are neighbors and other folks who can establish organic ties to voters. These are the people who need to be recruited and nurtured for successful progressive politics.

As a class, progressives are competent mobilizers, but crappy organizers; in fact I’ll take that one step further: As organizers, progressives often default to Orange Hatting, and thus operate as right-wing outreach mechanisms.

So, as a first step, I would suggest taking the time to ask people outside of one’s geographic and social comfort zones what they think the problems are. If a congruence of interest exists, allow the locals to organize each other.

At the local level in, for example Boston, all development has to go through zoning. It never hurts to get on the mailing list for the Zoning board of Appeals.

The same goes for city council/town meetings. One can empower people by providing access to public notices in a timely matter. “Timely” is defined as before the fix is in. Most local and State policy information can be obtained – either directly – or indirectly (through developing relationships) .

Back to the Legislature. The prime duty of Leadership (as perceived by rank and file) is to protect incumbents. That, not abstract political beliefs, is what all the post-Keverian Speakers had in common.

Prior to serving in the Massachusetts Senate, Senator Donnelly was a firefighter for 37 years in the Town of Lexington, and legislative agent and the secretary treasurer of the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts.

Ken was known to all who knew him first and foremost for his devotion to his family and as a fighter for those without a voice. Throughout his career, he fought to save others, protect the most vulnerable in our society, and give voice to working men and women across the Commonwealth. He was a staunch believer in the role of unions and government to protect workers, and he was well known for his efforts to advance justice and equality for all people no matter their race, religion, national origin, or sexual identification.

As such, he treated all with whom he met with dignity and respect, and over the many years he worked as both a union negotiator and state legislator, he earned back in return the respect and admiration of both his allies and his adversaries.

Senator Donnelly championed many causes during his career, from increasing access and quality to mental health services for all; to funding for workforce training for the unemployed and underemployed; to more protections for homeless families and retirees on fixed incomes; to women’s’ access to healthcare; and to the creation of a criminal justice system that was fair for all.

Through all these diverse efforts, Senator Donnelly never sought the accumulation of personal credit; but rather he was dedicated to the causes he believed in and the people he represented, and he brought his tremendous energy, courage, and passion to changing many lives for the better.

Senator Donnelly’s number one priority was his family. He leaves behind his loving wife of 43 years, Judy; his beloved children Ryan, Keith, and Brenna and his 5 grandchildren; and a large extended family and group of friends who loved and admired him.

Details on his wake and funeral arrangements will be announced when they become available.

Senator Donnelly was my friend and a mentor. Ken was the voice for working families in the State Senate. Whether he was entering a burning building as a firefighter or passionately advocating for the most vulnerable in our Commonwealth on the floor of the State Senate, Ken always always put others first.

After working with Ken for many years I am reminded that he always did what he thought was right. He was a man of profound character and unshakable integrity. I will miss the time we spent together, the laughter and stories we shared, and the immense pride I had in calling him my friend and partner.

My prayers and sincerest condolences go out to Ken’s wife Judy, his children Keith, Ryan and Brenna, his grandchildren, his staff, his friends and the constituents who he loved so much. Rest In Peace my friend.

He was my Senator and was on the right side of a lot of things. I sent him a rather frustrated note after the MBTA-apocalypse of 2015, and he set me straight on his record, which was indeed good. (I am always happy to be set straight in such a manner!)

But today’s not about the politics. It’s about the man and the people that loved him. RIP Ken and much comfort to his family and friends.

A BBC piece just rolled through my Google news feed that strikes me as significant. I don’t see a current thread for Mark (and others) to comment on, so I thought I’d just start one.

This piece looks pretty damning to me, and comes from apparently reliable sources.

Check this out (emphasis mine):

Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.

“This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated “bots”, then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US “news” sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

“If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don’t vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that’s voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot.”
This is the “big picture” some accuse the FBI of failing to see.…
With each new drip of information, option three – the chance that this is all a giant mistake, an improbable series of coincidences – seems further out of reach.

Increasingly, the American people are being asked to choose between two unpalatable versions of events: abuse of power by one president or treason that put another in the White House.
It cannot be both.

Indeed, and that’s probably as it should be. But as we learn today from today’s column by frequent contributor and Republican strategist Eric Fehrnstrom, the Globe’s fidelity to this principle extends so far as to allow opinion writers the freedom to contradict facts that were previously established by members of the news staff.

In this column (his fourth effort in the nineteen months he’s been opining for the Globe to harpoon Elizabeth Warren, his personal Leviathan), Fehrnstrom again falsely accuses Warren of helping corporate giant Travelers Insurance to defeat claims brought by victims of asbestos poisoning. But as Globe news staffers reported on multiple occasions when Fehrnstrom was peddling this same story in his capacity as a member of Scott Brown’s campaign staff, it is so misleading as to be untrue. This same campaign lie was also called out on BMG (here and here). Nevertheless, the falsehood is back again on today’s opinion page, and Fehrnstrom goes on to use it to attack Warren for hypocrisy:

If Warren engages in the same behaviors that she pretends to find in others, she should at least be reminded of her dishonesty.

On behalf of the Globe news staff, we are happy to do the same for him.

From the Boston Business Journal: As the cost of college rises, a Federal Reserve Bank economist said Wednesday, the necessity of obtaining an advanced degree for earning potential has contributed to Boston’s income inequality – ranked most unequal in the nation last year by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Forum.

The article only tells one side of the story. Even if 100% of Massachusetts citizens had a higher education, even if we all had a PhD, we would still need food market clerks, warehouse workers, school bus drivers, coffee shop servers, dry cleaning staff, dishwashers; an almost endless list of vital services that we all depend on for our lifestyle. All of the aforementioned deserve a sustainable wage unless the college grads can figure out how to survive on a six figure salary without the assistance of food market clerks, warehouse workers, school bus drivers, coffee shop servers, dry cleaning staff, dishwashers…….

Our problems will not go away if we keep insisting that “education and job skills” are the solution.

Our problems are the end product of the citizens of the commonwealth refusing to admit, and the reluctance of the Democratic Party to insist, that all citizens in our economy are rightfully due, at minimum, a sustaining wage. To paraphrase Adam Smith, a sustaining wage is on that will provide food, clothing shelter, medical care, (yes, even a smart phone) for the worker and the worker’s family. It must also be enough for the worker to save for that rainy day and eventually, retirement.

Eversource is asking to raise our electric rates by $96 million next year and an additional $50 million annually for the next four years. As the Department of Public Utilities public notice details, Boston area customers would see an immediate rate hike of an insanely-high 8 percent. That’s at a time when wholesale electricity prices are actually dropping to new lows.

It’s not that Eversource isn’t making money – it’s already getting a double-digit profit in Massachusetts. Nationally, Eversource saw profits soar 7% in 2016 to $942 million. As Attorney General Maura Healey explains, this is a pure profit grab by Eversource:

In her testimony, AG Healey challenged the need for Eversource’s rate increase, noting NSTAR’s and WMECo’s high returns over the last few years. Referencing NSTAR’s 2015 return of more than 13 percent, Attorney General Healey told the DPU that “[l]ast year, no state public utility commission in the country allowed a return that high.” Between 2010 and 2015, Eversource’s shareholders of common stock received a cumulative total return (including quarterly dividends and the change in the market price per share) of 89 percent.

AG Healey and her office have been advocating against Eversource’s proposed rate increase since the company announced it in early January. Prior to the company filing its request, AG Healey sent the DPU a letter urging it to launch an investigation to explain why the allowed profits for Massachusetts utility companies are higher than the allowed profits in neighboring states. She echoed that sentiment in her testimony Thursday and challenged the DPU to consider the appropriateness of Eversource’s request to earn a 10.5 percent return on equity (ROE).

Citing a recent Regulatory Research Associates report and 2016 rate decisions in Connecticut and Maine, AG Healey noted that Eversource’s request is well above the shareholder profits allowed last year by public utility commissions throughout the country (9.3 percent nationwide average in 2016) and in neighboring states (9.1 percent in Connecticut and 9.0 percent in Maine). Small changes in a company’s ROE can either cost or save customers millions of dollars. Every one percent reduction in Eversource’s requested ROE will save customers more than $28 million a year.

Considering we’re also constantly being pressured to pay a gas pipeline tax, all of us need to speak up to say we won’t pay. It’s also maddening that conservatives are constantly trying to blame our so-far-pitifully-small investment in clean energy for rate hikes, when clear profit grabs like this are what actually spike our bills.

You have three ways to weigh in. Let’s go through them from most-effective to less-effective.

The most effective way is to show up at an upcoming hearing to tell the DPU you oppose a rate hike:

FInally, if you simply can’t be bothered to come out in person or put pen to paper to save yourself hundreds of dollars over the next decade, you can email dpu.efiling@state.ma.us and specify DPU 17-05 in the subject line (by 5pm on 5/31/2017).

In the comments sections, and in an email I received from the journalist in reply to position against markets, there is one standard reply in support of markets and it is this: ”Market economics have proven remarkably productive, flexible, and innovative when it comes to food, clothing, and shelter. Food is even more essential to human life than medical care, and yet no one imagines that “it is time to take the delivery of nourishment out of the market.” And from others: Is food a right? Water? Clothing? Housing? Because without those things you wouldn’t have to worry about healthcare…you’d be dead. We need those things every single day and yet they’re very available, affordable, accessible, etc. For both rich and poor. Some will ask, “If the government has to give us medical care, what about food? Food is essential to life. Should food be free?”

To the question, “Should food be free?” I say, “yes.”, but a well qualified “yes”. If a citizen is unable to provide themselves with food, or clothing, or shelter, yes, the government needs to step in and provide food, clothing, shelter, or medical care – At NO fee- until such time as that citizen can provide for themselves. The government gives free shelter to its citizens when there is a wide spread power outage and the only safe housing is a local school gymnasium. There are countless examples of where the government freely gives food, water, shelter, clothing, and more, because of the citizen’s inability to obtain this from a market OR when the market cannot meet demand.

In addition to the principle of inelastic demand, as to why free markets are not the “fix” for health care costs, I will explain why health care is different from food, clothing, shelter and ought not be placed in the market. As I said to one person, “I can grow my own food, build my own shelter, weave my own cloth. When I can perform my own heart bypass, I will concede your point”

In 1900, the average American spent $100 (In today’s dollars) a year on health care. $100 a year is not a lot of money and so, as with clothing, food, shelter, most citizens could buy it on their own, without the help of government, and for that matter, without the need to purchase health insurance. However, in the late 1800′s and into the early 1900′s, fantastic advances in medicine were made. From vascular surgery, to anesthesia, antibiotics and more, medicine exploded with options to help treat, cure, and repair many physical ills that beforehand were either a death sentence or life long agony.

In 1900, the average American’s health care cost $100 per year. Today, that figure is over $8,000. It is important to point out that $8,000 is an average. Most citizens are in need of far less than $8,000 but some citizens will need much much more at one time or another. Heart bypass surgery typically costs about $70,000-$200,000 or more, and heart valve replacement surgery typically costs $80,000-$200,000 or more. If we were to budget the total cost to support two individuals from birth to death, we could easily calculate how much each would need in terms of food, clothing, shelter. We all need about 2,000 calories a day, and so on.No citizen is that much different from another with regard to food, clothing, shelter. However, it is impossible to say, with certainty what medical treatments either person may require. It is also foolish to assume that most anyone could or should save money for heart valve surgery or chemotherapy.

As I noted earlier, if a citizen is unable to provide themselves with food, or clothing, or shelter, yes, the government needs to step in. The same is true of health care. Given that the cost of health care is potentially so high that few citizens could ever afford it on their own, and given the reality that only a few will need very expensive treatments – but we do not know who among us that will be- it is only rational, equitable, and moral that our government provide medical care to its citizens in same way it provided that school gymnasium to the local citizens in need who could not provide for their own shelter.

Or, is the Republican conservative reply to those citizens to “buy your own school gymnasium” in the free market?

]]>6http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/03/markets-and-health-care/David Bernstein: "Let's Dismantle the Massachusetts House of Representatives"http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/ZRpmuVN4ba8/
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:55:06 +0000hesterprynneDavid Bernstein has really had it with the Massachusetts Legislature’s opaque back-room operations and its continuous failure to address many of the state’s long-term needs. And in this month’s Boston Magazine, he’s offering a solution: “Let’s Dismantle the Massachusetts House of Representatives”:

If all of this infuriates you; if you’re also enraged that Beacon Hill continuously fails to seriously address the state’s long-term needs for transportation, housing, education, and development; and if you’re sick and tired of the state legislature’s opaque back-room operations, I have a proposal for you: Eliminate the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

Points for boldness! This is also a thoughtful argument that touches on the feudal origins of the two-chamber system (the nobles needed a safe space where they could protect themselves against the tyranny of the majority) and the present effect of that system, which is to allow “special interests to gum up the works without any public accounting for legislators.” Exhibit A in this regard is the conference committee process, which comes into play every time the House and Senate pass differing versions of a bill:

As Beacon Hill watchers know, bills in conference committee pile up until the final days of the formal session, when the supposed work of two years, 200 legislators, and committees in open hearings is actually done in a hectic rush, by a handful of people, horse-trading within and between bills, until finally spitting out new versions for the two chambers to hastily endorse.

Also not to be missed is a timeline detailing Speaker DeLeo’s consolidation of power and predicting the end date of the DeLeo era (January 2021, when he becomes a lobbyist).

A couple thoughts:

First, in deciding on its governing rules for this new (2017-2018) session, the Legislature acknowledged the problem of the end-of-session bottleneck. The new rules require the joint committees, which handle the initial consideration of bills, to complete their work in early February rather than in mid-March, and they also prohibit the appointment of new conference committees within 14 days of the end of a legislative session. But there’s no deadline for conference committees to finish their work, so stay tuned to July of next year to see if these rules changes have practical results.

Second, if the Legislature is continually failing to address the state’s pressing issues, the question arises — what are they doing with their time?

My theory: they’re doing a lot of enacting, but the bills that are passed fall under the decidedly “noncontroversial” category — designating bridges and overpasses in honor of beloved community members; establishing sick leave banks for one state employee at a time, exempting a single municipal position from the Civil Service laws, or granting one additional liquor license to one town.

In 1997, the noncontroversial bills like these made up about a tenth of the Legislature’s output. Now it’s more like one in three.

The graph presents a corollary of Bernstein’s thesis — our Legislature avoids many pressing issues (charter schools and marijuana being two recent examples) and increasingly contents itself with hyperlocal items lacking in wide application or great import.

Anyway, read the article. I’m not quite convinced about the remedy he’s proposing, but the diagnosis is beyond dispute.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party will be establishing our platform for the next four years at our convention in June in Worcester. We are almost through our caucus period.

Whether or not you are a delegate to the State Convention, there is still the opportunity to take part in the process of developing the Platform.

1) There are still some caucuses that have not yet been held. Here is the schedule.

2) For youth, minorities and those with disabilities there is an add-on process. The deadline is April 4 at 5:00 pm. You can apply online here.

3) There is a Platform Committee which will be conducting hearings across the state. The MDP recently announced the selection of three members to chair our platform committee: Former Lieutenant Governor Evelyn Murphy, Suffolk County Sheriff Steve Tompkins, and former Massachusetts State Director for Bernie Sanders for President Paul Feeney. The schedule has been published and locations are in the process of being finalized. Information on schedules and an overview of the Platform can be found here. People can attend a platform hearing or submit testimony online.

4) In addition to Platform Hearings, Democratic Town/Ward/City Committees, DSC members and Democratic organizations can host Platform Meetings. Information on Platform Meetings can is here.

I thought that I would take a minute and invite those who are interested to subscribe to my weekly e-mail Democratic newsletter, the Democratic Dispatch. Just once per week, the newsletter is primarily a calendar of Democratic events across the state. To subscribe send an e-mail to DDemDispatch-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Yahoo then typically sends an e-mail asking for confirmation. This sometimes goes to spam, sent check all your mailbox folders. You can check out previous issues.

I’ve strongly suspected Flynn had already cut a deal with the FBI from the minute the story broke about him registering as a foreign agent. It was probably fairly easy for the FBI to convince him to go along with it, as they already have him nailed on the felony of lying to them about Russia several months ago (source: Washington Post). Now that he’s the only one of the four known campaign targets who’s not running to the Congressional committee show-trials, it seems all the more obvious.

There’s no question that Flynn is in legal trouble. He’s violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act and probably the Logan Act, though that law may not be prosecutable. In addition to these offenses, Flynn may have violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution when he spoke at the Russia Today 10th Anniversary gala. Add conspiracy to kidnapping to the list and Flynn has serious trouble. There’s no evidence to suggest that Flynn had lied to investigators at any point, but that would also be a legal concern for the general who’s been fired from two presidential administrations.

Long-retired former CIA Director James Woolsey was an adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign. He eventually quit during the transition period, diplomatically suggesting that his role had run its course. But he’s now publicly disclosing something which may have been a factor. Last summer Michael Flynn brought Woolsey along to a meeting with representatives from the Turkish government, where they discussed theoretical plans for abducting Turkish dissident Fethullah Gulen from his home in Pennsylvania and shipping him back to Turkey. During the same meeting, Flynn tried to hire Woolsey as a consultant to his firm, in the name of furthering this plot against Gulen.

Woolsey now says he was taken aback by what he overheard at the meeting, and he suspected that even the discussion about abducting Gulen was a crime. So he refused Flynn’s money, and instead he reported the meeting to the federal government.

Flynn has been on the U.S. intelligence radar since 2015 when he took money from the Russians for delivering a speech at which included a well-publicized, well-compensated speech at Russia Today’s 10th Anniversary Gala. Last summer, Flynn was reported by Woolsley for discussing the kidnap of Gulen with Turkish officials. That would be enough for a FISA warrant for the NSA and the FBI and allowed the transcription and analysis of Flynn’s discussions with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Although not quite incriminating, Flynn’s ability to lie certainly raises questions about his guilt. At first, Flynn flatly denied discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; he subsequently changed his story and claimed that he couldn’t remember whether he discussed sanctions.

Aspiring liars should note that people who use the “I don’t recall” strategy usually begin, not end, with it. Even then, it stretches credibility when a liar has five conversations with someone in one day and claims not to remember what they talked about.

The cancellation of the House Intelligence Committee open hearing on Tuesday–it may only be the “open” that was cancelled–is a speed bump. Carrying water for Trump, Devin Nunes has likely destroyed not only his committee’s credibility but his career. Nunes is one of the less affluent members of Congress. He has a $50,000 stake in a winery. Guess which country buys a lot of its wine?

OK, now that Trump’s “moderate” advisors choked on health care (Priebus & Pence moderates?…yes that is the country we now live in) will he turn to his extremist advisors and open up the door to the possibility of expanding single payer care in the US? And should the Dems encourage this possibility?

Ditch the Freedom Caucus and the handful of Senate Republicans who want a complete repeal of Obamacare. They don’t agree with universal coverage and will never be placated.

Find a few parts of Ryan Care II that can win passage in the House and Senate with either GOP support or bipartisan support. Declare victory.

Rekindle the bipartisanship in Congress that Obama destroyed. Empanel a bipartisan committee to report back by year’s end with a feasible plan to fix Obamacare.

Reject the phony private health insurance market as the panacea. Look to an upgraded Medicaid system to become the country’s blanket insurer for the uninsured.

Tie Medicaid funding to states with the requirement each pass legislation to allow for a truly nationwide healthcare market.

Get Democrats to agree to modest tort reform to help lower medical costs.

While bolstering Medicare and improving Medicaid, get Republicans and Democrats to back the long-term fix of health savings accounts. This allows individuals to fund their own healthcare and even profit from it.

Point 2 is water under the bridge now. But it is point 3 that is most intriguing.

So BlueMassGroupers…what do you say, should the Dems publicly start making noise about working with Trump to fix the ACA and maybe get an expanded single payer system to cover the working poor? Of course that would mean working with the devil on this (that would be Steve Bannon not Chris Ruddy). As for those wondering why a Steve Bannon would support something like this…I point to the first sovereign leader that implemented health care insurance and his motives behind it.

Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, or 2.1% of the popular vote. He’s never had majority approval in the Gallup daily tracking poll, with a positive approval for exactly two days of his presidency, January 24-25, when he was at +1 (46% approved, 45% disapproved).

There are many ways to describe Trump and his policies, but “popular” is not one of them. “White nationalist,” on the other hand, is extremely accurate! Or, considering how many of Trump’s promised trade protections have been abandoned, how about “white corporatist”?

]]>8http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/03/lets-look-at-poll-data-about-trumps-populism/Climate Mobilization April 29: Bus tickets from Boston area availablehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/hQjBQHlD1SE/
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:24:46 +0000charley-on-the-mtaJust a quick note: The People’s Climate Mobilization is happening in DC on 4/29. 350Mass and other local orgs are getting buses (probably the lowest-carbon way to get there) from a number of places around Greater Boston. They’re on the red-eye schedule — leaving Friday night, getting there early Saturday morning; leaving DC Saturday night, getting back early Sunday am. (For me, that actually works perfectly.)

The word on locations, from an email from 350Mass’s Emily Kirkland:

Current drop-off / pick-up locations: based on ticket sales, it’s looking like Alewife, Franklin Village, Worcester, somewhere on the North Shore, Brookline, JP, downtown Boston, and possibly somewhere on the South Shore. No matter what, we will try to set up pick-ups and drop-offs that are reasonably convenient for almost everyone! More soon.

Look, there’s a lot happening every day, as our government seems to be crumbling around us. But look at Trump’s proposed budget: The EPA suffers absolutely the worst cuts of anyone. And I’m afraid that because the EPA handles long-term, de-personalized risks and crises, that the current political juice of the Indivisibles, etc., will not rescue it from GOP devastation. But they deserve support, because they save lives and health too — very effectively!

We need political mobilization. We need bodies. We need voices and phone calls and signs and energy and all that. Please come to the march. Get your ticket.

]]>7http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/03/climate-mobilization-april-29-bus-tickets-from-boston-available/Franken, Gorsuch, the Frozen Trucker, and Absurdityhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/HZhQ-P9X7og/
Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:05:28 +0000charley-on-the-mtaIn case you missed it, you really need to see this line of questioning — more an anecdote, really — from Al Franken to Neil Gorsuch:

There can be different colorings of the word “absurd”: Sometimes it’s kind of silly. In this case, it’s a menacing, Kafka-esque, Catch-22 absurdity: The court is going to pretend you have options — and they empathize, they really do – but they’re just going to rule against you anyway. The cat lets the wounded mouse run around a bit, plays with it, but its fate is clear. The wealthy always win, because they’re in charge and have made the rules. You can use whatever argument, any principle you want (“plain meaning”)… but the conclusion is pre-ordained.

In SCOTUS appointments, I’m less than impressed by high-minded assessments of a judge’s character, qualifications or intellect. There are plenty of honest, qualified, and smart judges. Gorsuch may be all of those things or none; but in any event it’s not why he’s there. He’s there precisely to protect wealthy interests from lawsuits and regulation; and to whittle down voting rights for those unfavored by this radically illiberal administration (and party).

It’s politics. We know what he’s there for.

]]>23http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/03/franken-gorsuch-the-frozen-trucker-and-absurdity/A chance for realignment, if you make the casehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/82MTh90XKVw/
Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:30:47 +0000charley-on-the-mtaNoah Smith (@noahpinion) points to this intriguing chart, derived from the Quinnipiac Poll:

The dip in Trump’s approval coincides with the current health care debacle, not the deepening, already-obscene Russia mire. Why? Having suffered downward mobility for a generation, the white working class was willing to forgive a ton from Trump, in the hope of the return of jobs — a hand up. Trump saw an underserved market and told them what they wanted to hear. That’s politics.

But the WWC — like the rest of the working class — has real skin in the game with health care. We know anecdotally that many Trump supporters disliked Obamacare because of rising premiums and high deductibles. And Trump told them what they wanted to hear! Better care, more covered, lower costs. Which as we know, has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill the House is planning to vote on today.

The Republicans may be — ought to be — screwed either way. Those who vote against the bill for reasons of compassion and good sense (if such there be) will have to contend with the wrath of Trump and the Hannityites in a primary. Those who vote for it will face outraged voters in practically every precinct, looking to properly reward an act of reckless legislative barbarity. (Good luck to those upstate NY Republicans, who accepted a minor tax fix — really just a transfer of fiscal responsibilty — in return for taking away thousands of their constituents’ health care. See how that works out for you, fellas. )

The Democrats have an opportunity here to win back those voters. These voters have nothing whatsoever to gain from Ryan/Trump-style Social Darwinism, and that’s starting to show in the polls. This is not what they asked for. The Dems need to speak clearly about fairness, about community, about helping each other out. There needs to be a philosophical coherence, and the programs they propose need to be quite bold. Even as it has been a massive step forward, the problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it is not affordable enough.

Will it be time — in a year, say — to boldly propose cradle-to-grave health care, that you can never lose? Will the country be at that point? It’s not wrong to float the principle, to let people know you’re looking out for them.

(More on that later.)

]]>5http://bluemassgroup.com/2017/03/a-chance-for-realignment-if-you-make-the-case/Dems Cave on Gorsuch Hearing- Exactly Wrong Movehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bluemassgroup/front/~3/HqioIJiBo4M/
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:42:06 +0000terrymcginty
The context of the Gorsuch nomination is *everything*. Stolen seat; president elected without majority, without mandate. If he wanted to nominate a moderate, we'd certainly consider it. Gorsuch may be qualified but he's not that guy. Nope nope nope
- promoted by charley-on-the-mta

The following is a thread discussing current Dem strategy on the Gorsuch nomination.

BMGr’s: what do you think?

MY POST: Even if Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch were Oliver Wendell Holmes, due to the unconstitutional theft of Obama’s nomination to the Court, any Democrat who votes for Gorsuch should be primaried.

MY FRIEND, P.R.: ”The only problem with that is that we need every Democrat no matter how disgusting in 2018 to turn the Congress- i would wait till after that to get revenge”

ME: ”Not a bad idea! But tough to execute I suspect.”

MY FRIEND, P.R.: ”but we need to advocate for every Democrat and not primary those who can win in their state just because we don’t like all their positions- again a Democrat in Mass will run on a different platform than on in WV or MS. and need to vote differently on some issues to be elected. As long as they commit to voting for the Democratic Leadership in 2018 I will give them a pass- even Bernie Sanders who isn’t a Democrat but will vote for the Dem leadership needs to be reelected in VT.”

ME: ”…a Democrat in Mass will run on a different platform than on in WV or MS. and need to vote differently on some issues to be elected.”

Yes, I agree.

“As long as they commit to voting for the Democratic Leadership in 2018 I will give them a pass”

No, I do not agree.

This is not just another policy issue. Were Ted Kennedy alive today, I believe in 2016 he would’ve put getting Obama’s Merrick Garland on the agenda as his number one – not number two not number three not number four… Number 1 priority. Therefore, I don’t think we would be here.

Nonetheless, here we are.

Next question: Were Ted Kennedy alive today, I believe that he would not participate in the completion of this theft – and that is what it is – it is a theft of the seat. It’s not a normal issue.

The Republicans have consistently cited isolated quotes from Joe Biden and others to say, “Well, the Democrats did it too.”

Not true. There may have been isolated quotations, but the Democrats never ever deprived a Republican president of at least a hearing on his Supreme Court nominee.

That is why I disagree with you. This must not be treated like just another normal issue where Democrats have to run differently in different states. Sadly, your position is carrying the day in Washington DC.